[December 1916. Zurich.]

Among the Left Social-Democrats in Switzerland there exists complete unanimity on the question of the necessity, precisely in connection with the present war, to reject the principle of national defense. The proletariat, or at least its best elements, is also opposed to the defense of the country.

Thus, with respect to the most burning question of contemporary socialism in general and of the Swiss socialist party in particular, there exists, it would seem, the necessary unity. But if we examine the matter more closely, we shall inevitably come to the conclusion that this unity is mere appearance.

In fact, there is not the slightest clarity — let alone agreement — on the fact that a declaration of rejection of defense of the fatherland already in itself constitutes such a matter which makes extraordinarily high demands upon the revolutionary consciousness, as well as upon the revolutionary capacity for action of the party that proclaims this — of course, provided that such a declaration does not degenerate into an empty phrase. If, then, one simply proclaims the rejection of national defense quite simply, without further ado — that is, without understanding these demands, without making clear to oneself that all propaganda, agitation, organization, in short, the entire activity of the party must be fundamentally "regenerated" (to use the expression of Karl Liebknecht) and adapted to the highest revolutionary tasks — then this declaration transforms itself into nothing but an empty phrase.

Let us think carefully about what the rejection of national defense actually means if we treat it as a political slogan to be taken seriously and to be actually carried out.

First. We propose to the proletarians and the exploited in all warring and all war-threatened countries to reject national defense. Now from the experience of several warring countries we already know directly what it means in reality to reject defense of the fatherland in the present war. It means to negate all the foundations of present bourgeois society, and to lay an axe at the roots of the present social order not only in theory, not only "in general," but in practice, immediately, at once. Is it not clear that we can do this only on the condition that we not only possess the most firm theoretical conviction that capitalism has already become completely ripe for transformation into socialism, but that we recognize this socialist transformation — that is, the socialist revolution — as practically feasible, immediately, at once?

But this is almost always overlooked when one speaks of the rejection of national defense. At best one is prepared to "theoretically" recognize that capitalism has already ripened for transformation into socialism, but about an immediate, thorough change in the entire activity of the party in the sense of the directly impending socialist revolution — about this one wants to hear nothing!

The people are supposedly unprepared for it!

But this is inconsistent to the point of absurdity. Either — or. Either we have no right to proclaim the immediate rejection of national defense — or we must at once begin to develop, or must begin to develop, systematic propaganda for the immediate feasibility of the socialist revolution. In a certain sense, the "people" are of course neither "prepared" for the rejection of national defense, nor for the socialist revolution, but from this it does not follow that we have the right to postpone for two years — two years! — the systematic beginning of this preparation!

Second. What is counterposed to the policy of national defense and of the civil truce? Revolutionary struggle against war, "revolutionary mass actions," as they have been recognized by the resolution of the party congress at Aarau in 1915. This is undoubtedly an excellent resolution, but... but the history of the party since this party congress, the actual policy of the party, proves precisely that it has remained a paper resolution!

What is the aim of the revolutionary mass actions? The party has not said this officially, and one does not speak about it at all. It is either regarded as self-evident, or explicitly recognized, that this aim is "Socialism." One counterposed to capitalism (or imperialism) Socialism.

But this is in the highest degree (theoretically) illogical and practically devoid of content. It is illogical because it is too general, too vague. "Socialism" as a goal in general, in opposition to capitalism (or imperialism), is now recognized not only by the Kautskyans and social-chauvinists, but also by many bourgeois social politicians. But now the question is not about the general counterposition of two social systems, but about the concrete tasks of concrete "revolutionary mass actions" against concrete evil — namely, against present high prices, present war danger, or the present war.

The entire Second International from 1871 to 1914 counterposed socialism to capitalism in general, and it was precisely on this too general "generalization" that it suffered bankruptcy. It ignored precisely the specific evil of our epoch, which Fr. Engels characterized as long as 30 years ago, on 10 January 1887, with the following words:

"...In the social-democratic party itself, including even the Reichstag faction, there finds a certain type of petty-bourgeois socialism its representation. It finds expression there in such a form, that the fundamental views of modern socialism and the demand for the transformation of all means of production into social property are recognized as justified, but their realization is considered possible only in a *distant, practically indefinable* future. Thus in the present time it becomes condemned to *mere social palliatives* ..." (Preface to "The Housing Question").

As the concrete aim of "revolutionary mass actions," one can put forward not "Socialism" in general, but only the concrete measures of a socialist revolution. But when one proposes to define these concrete measures precisely — for instance, as the Dutch comrades did in their program, printed in the Bulletin of the I.S.C., No. 3 (Bern, 29 November 1916): annulment of state debts, expropriation of the banks, expropriation of all large enterprises — when one proposes to incorporate such quite concrete measures both into the official resolution of the party and to explain them systematically and in the most popular form in the daily propaganda and agitation of the party, in meetings, in parliamentary speeches, in initiative proposals — then one gets again the same evasive or dilatory, thoroughly sophistic answer, that the people are not prepared for this, etc.!

But the matter is precisely this: to begin this preparation now and to pursue it unwaveringly!

Third. The party has "recognized" mass revolutionary actions. Excellent. But is the party capable of doing something like this? Is it preparing for it? Is it studying these questions, gathering the corresponding material, creating the corresponding organs and organizations, discussing the relevant questions in the people, together with the people?

Nothing of the sort! The party (obstinately) remains wholly within its old exclusively parliamentary, exclusively trade-unionist, exclusively reformist, exclusively legal groove. The party remains notoriously incapable of promoting and leading revolutionary mass actions, it is notoriously not preparing itself at all for this. The old routine prevails and the "new" words (rejection of defense of the fatherland, revolutionary mass struggle) — remain only words! And the Left do not recognize this, and are not systematically and persistently gathering their forces everywhere, in all domains of party work, in order to struggle against this evil.

One cannot help shrugging one's shoulders when one reads, for example, the following phrase (the last phrase) in Grimm's theses on the question of war:

"The organs of the party, together with the trade union organizations of the country, must in this case (i.e., in calling, in the event of danger of war, railway workers to mass strike, etc.) take all necessary measures."

These theses were published in the summer of the current year, and on 16 September 1916 one could read in the "Schweizerische Metallarbeiterzeitung" (the "Newspaper of Swiss Metalworkers"), headed by the names of editors: O. Schneeberger and K. Dürr, the following phrase (I almost said: the following official answer to Grimm's theses or to Grimm's pious wishes):

..."Very much in bad taste is... the phrase "The worker has no fatherland" at a moment when workers of all Europe in their overwhelming majority for two years have stood shoulder to shoulder with the bourgeoisie on the battlefield against the "enemies" of their fatherland, and those who remained at home want to "hold out" despite hardship and suffering. *In the case of a foreign attack, we would undoubtedly witness the same spectacle in Switzerland too*!!!"

Is it not "Kautskyite" politics, politics of impotent phrase — of left declamations and opportunist practice — when on the one hand one proposes resolutions that the party should "together with trade union organizations" call for revolutionary mass strikes, and on the other hand does not wage any struggle against the Grütlian, that is, social-patriotic, reformist, exclusively legalist direction and its representatives within the party and the trade unions?

Does it mean to "educate" the masses or to corrupt and demoralize them, if one does not tell them and prove to them daily that the "leading" comrades O. Schneeberger, K. Dürr, P. Pflüger, H. Greulich, Huber and several others have precisely such social-patriotic views, pursue precisely such social-patriotic politics, which Grimm so "bravely" exposes and castigates... when it is a question of Reich Germans and not of Swiss? To insult foreigners, to cover up one's "own" "fellow citizens"... is this "internationalist"? Is this "democratic"?

Hermann Greulich has characterized the situation of the Swiss working class, the crisis of Swiss socialism, as well as the essence of Grütlian politics within the socialist party with the following words:

..."The standard of living has risen very little and only for the upper strata (listen! listen!) of the working class. The mass of workers remains in want, cares, and deprivations. Therefore, from time to time doubt arises whether the path we have hitherto followed is the right one. Critics seek new paths and especially place hopes on a sharper course of action. Attempts are made in this direction, which as a rule (?) do not succeed (??) and cause a return to the old tactics with renewed force" (is not here also the wish the father of the thought?)... "And now the world war has come... The enormous deterioration in the standard of living, extending to want among such strata as previously led still tolerable lives, strengthens the revolutionary mood" (listen! listen!)... "In truth, the leadership of the party was not equal to the tasks facing it and submitted too much (??) to the influence of hot heads (so? so?)... The Central Committee of the Grütli Union claims for itself the conduct of "practical national politics" which it wants to pursue outside the party. ...Why did it not do this within the party" (listen! listen!)? "Why has it almost always left it to me to wage the struggle against the over-radicals?" (Open Letter to the Grütli Union. Hottingen, 26 September 1916.)

So speaks Greulich. It is not, therefore, as though a couple of "evildoers" (as the Grütlians within the party silently think or hint at in the press, and the Grütlians outside the party openly say) from their impatience want to implant revolutionism into the workers' movement which they regard through "foreign spectacles." No, none other than Hermann Greulich — whose actual political role is that of a bourgeois minister of labor in a small democratic republic — informs us that only the upper strata of the working class enjoy some slight improvement in their condition, but the mass remains in want, and that "the strengthening of revolutionary mood" does not come from the accursed foreign "agitators," but from the "enormous deterioration in the standard of living."

Well then?

Well then, it will certainly be true if we say:

Either the Swiss people will hunger, and with each week hunger more terribly, and daily run the danger of being drawn into an imperialist war, that is, of being slaughtered for the benefit of capitalists, or it will heed the advice of the best part of its working class, rally all its forces, and carry out the socialist revolution.

The socialist revolution? A Utopia! A "distant, practically indefinable" possibility!...

It is no greater a utopia than to reject national defense in this war, than to wage revolutionary mass struggle against this war. One must not intoxicate oneself with words and must not allow oneself to be frightened (intimidated) by words. Almost everyone is prepared to recognize revolutionary struggle against war, but let them imagine the magnitude of the task — to put an end to such a war through revolution! No, this is not a utopia; revolution is growing in all countries. And now the question does not stand thus: to continue living calmly and tolerably or to plunge into adventure. The question rather stands thus: to hunger and go to the slaughter for others, for foreign interests, or to make great sacrifices for socialism, for the interests of 9/10 of humanity.

The socialist revolution is supposedly a utopia! But the Swiss people, thank God, does not speak an "independent" or "autonomous" language, but three world languages, precisely those spoken in the neighboring warring states. Thus it is not unlikely that the Swiss people know exactly what is happening in these states. In Germany they have come to the point of directing the economic life of 66 million people from one center, of organizing the national economy of 66 million people from one center, of imposing the greatest sacrifices upon the overwhelming majority of the people, and all this so that "the upper 30,000" can stuff billions of war profits into their pockets and so that millions are slaughtered for the benefit of these "noble" and "best" representatives of the nation. And in the face of these facts, in the face of this experience, is it supposed to be "utopian" that a small people, which has no monarchy, no junkers, which stands at a very high stage of capitalism, whose population is perhaps organized in various associations better than in all other capitalist countries — that such a people, in order to save itself from hunger and war danger, would do the *same thing* that has been practically tested in Germany, with the difference, of course, that in Germany millions are killed and crippled so that a few may be enriched, so that Bagdad may be secured, the Balkans conquered, whereas in Switzerland one need only expropriate a maximum of 30,000 citizens, that is, not kill them, but simply condemn them to the "dreadful" fate of receiving "only" 6-10 thousand francs income and having to hand over the rest to the socialist workers' government, so that the people might be protected from hunger and war danger.

But surely the Great Powers will never tolerate a socialist Switzerland, and the first beginnings of a socialist revolution in Switzerland will be strangled by the overwhelming military forces of these Powers!

This would certainly be so, first, if the beginnings of revolution in Switzerland were possible without evoking class movements of solidarity in the neighboring countries; secondly, if these Great Powers were not in a dead-end street of an "exhaustion war" that has already almost exhausted the patience of the most patient peoples. But now a military intervention on the part of the Great Powers, locked in combat with one another, would be only a prelude to revolution flaming up throughout Europe.

Do you perhaps think that I am so naïve as to believe that such questions as the question of the socialist revolution could be decided "through persuasion"?

No. I wish only to illustrate, and indeed only one particular question: what change would have to be made in the entire propaganda of the party if one wanted to take the rejection of national defense truly seriously! Only an illustration, only to one particular question — I claim nothing more.

It would be entirely wrong to assume that in order to wage direct struggle for the socialist revolution, we can or must abandon the struggle for reforms. Not in the least. We cannot know how soon it will be possible, how soon objective conditions will allow the revolution to break out. We must support every improvement, every real improvement in both the economic and political situation of the masses. The difference between us and the reformists (that is, in Switzerland the Grütlians) will not consist in the fact that they are for reforms and we are against them. Nothing of the sort. They limit themselves to reforms and degrade themselves, to use the apt expression of one (rare!) revolutionary contributor to the "Schweizerische Metallarbeiterzeitung" (No. _), to mere "nurses of capitalism." We say to the workers: vote for proportional representation, etc., but do not limit your activity to this; rather, place in the foreground the systematic dissemination of the idea of immediate socialist revolution, prepare yourselves for it, and on all fronts introduce the corresponding fundamental changes in the entire activity of the party. One is very often forced by the conditions of a bourgeois democracy to take a position on an enormous mass of small and smallest reforms, but one must understand, or must learn, to take the position on reforms in such a way that we — to express it somewhat mechanically, but drastically — in every half-hour speech speak 5 minutes about reforms and 25 about the coming revolution.

Without difficult and costly revolutionary mass struggles, a socialist revolution is impossible. But one commits precisely the inconsistency of recognizing revolutionary mass struggles and the striving for immediate cessation of the war — and rejecting immediate socialist revolution! But the first without the second is nothing, mere sound of words.

Without difficult internal party struggles, it is also impossible. But it is only bad manners, only hypocrisy, only philistine ostrich politics, if one imagines that "inner peace" can possibly prevail in the Swiss social-democratic party. The question does not stand thus: whether "inner peace" or "internal party struggles." It suffices to read the above-mentioned letter from Hermann Greulich, to recall the recent developments in the party over the last several years, to see the complete untruth of this assumption.

The question in reality stands only thus: either today's concealed forms of internal party struggle that demoralize the masses, or open, principled struggle between the internationalist-revolutionary and the Grütlian direction within and outside the party.

Such an "internal struggle," where H. Greulich rages against the "over-radicals" or "hotheads" without precisely naming these villains or precisely characterizing their politics — where R. Grimm prints articles absolutely incomprehensible to 9/10 of the readers of the "Berner Tagwacht," peppered with insinuations, where one scolds against "foreign spectacles" or "actual instigators" of resolution proposals unpleasant to Grimm — such an internal struggle demoralizes the masses, who see or guess at a kind of "leadership squabble" without understanding what it is actually about.

But such a struggle, where the Grütlian direction within the party — which is much more important and much more dangerous than

very often force us to take one position or another with respect to a whole mass of petty and minuscule reforms, but we must be able to, or learn to, take a position *in favor* of reforms in such a manner (in such a way) that, expressing the essence of the matter — simplified, but to put it sharply — in each half-hour speech, speak for 5 minutes about reforms and 25 minutes about the coming revolution.

Without difficult, connected with many sacrifices, revolutionary mass struggle, socialist revolution is impossible. But it would be inconsistent to recognize revolutionary mass struggle and the striving for the immediate end of the war — and at the same time to reject immediate socialist revolution! The first without the second — is nothing, empty sound.

Nor can we do without difficult struggle within the party. But it would be mere posturing, mere hypocrisy, mere petty-bourgeois ostrich politics, if we were to imagine that there can generally prevail "internal peace" in the Swiss Social-Democratic party. The question does not stand thus: either "internal peace" or "inner-party struggle." It is enough to read the aforementioned letter of Herman Greulich and to examine events in the party over the last several years, to see the complete falsity of such an assumption.

In reality, the question stands thus: either the present hidden, demoralizing forms of inner-party struggle, or open, principled struggle between the internationalist-revolutionary current and the Greulichian tendency within and outside the party.

Such an "inner-party struggle," in which H. Greulich attacks the "ultra-radicals" or the "hotheads," without naming these creatures precisely and without defining their politics precisely, and R. Grimm publishes in the *Berner Tagwacht* absolutely incomprehensible articles for readers, overflowing with hints, where "foreign spectacles" or the "actual culprits" of resolution projects unpleasant to Grimm are showered with reproaches — such an internal struggle demoralizes the masses, who see in this or sense a kind of "squabbling among the leaders," without understanding what is essentially at stake.

But such a struggle, in which the Greulichian tendency within the party — and it is much more important and much more dangerous than